The question is no longer whether the Democrats are going to lose in the lame-duck fight over Bush-era tax cuts.

It’s all over but the shouting — that is, if you don’t count all the self-flagellation sure to follow. I wonder if that’s covered in the new health care law.

The Democrats are close to losing on what seems like an unlosable issue — doing away with tax cuts on family income above $250,000 a year and keeping the cuts in place for all income under $250,000.

Let me recount the Democratic plan for you: Nearly all Americans would keep their tax cuts — in order to address the stagnating income of the middle class, to give those people who actually need the money the chance to help spend our way out of the bad economy and, of course, to pander to the great majority of American voters.

And the upper 2 to 3 percent of earners, meanwhile, would have to go back to Clinton-era rates — when the economy, if I recall, was working pretty well for them.

You have to understand, we’re talking about marginal tax rates. The taxes don’t change until you hit $250,000. If you make, say, $300,000 — and don’t you wish? — your taxes go up 3 percent on the $50,000 above $250,000. If you can’t do the math — and I’m guessing you can — you can afford to hire an accountant who will do it for you.

This looked like a lock. And yet, when the negotiations are done between the White House and Congress, the upper 2 percent will almost certainly keep their tax cuts — at least temporarily. And the Democrats will hope to get, in return, an extension of unemployment benefits and some face-saving tax cuts and credits.

And in what looks like what should have been maybe a 98-2 win for the Democrats, the Republicans are going to keep their win streak alive.

There are a few issues remaining, including who exactly is to blame for — as they say in the sports world — grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory. Let’s just say the guilty party is not the blameless 8-inch toy robot they blew up near Coors Field. You’ve got your choice of Barack Obama and congressional Democrats, neither of whom needed a bomb squad. They blew themselves up.

It’s an issue where the polls come down clearly on the Democrats’ side. Most people, unsurprisingly, don’t think the richer among us need these cuts. And, of course, there’s the potential impact on the deficit crisis, which is one crisis Democrats are allowing to go to waste.

It may seem counterintuitive to you — or to anyone else — but at the same time the deficit-cutting Simpson-Bowles commission says we need to share in some major deficit- cutting sacrifice, we choose to sacrifice by extending tax cuts to all, including those who don’t need them.

And if you’re keeping score, the cost for extending cuts for income over $250,000 would be an estimated $700 billion over 10 years.

Democrats were apparently afraid to take this issue on before the midterm elections because they thought they’d be labeled as tax- hikers by Republicans. And so, they left it for the lame-duck session, and you can see how that has turned out.

Senate Republicans remain solid with their filibuster-proof 42 votes. As you may have noticed, they’re not exactly worried about being labeled rejectionists. In the House, Nancy Pelosi got a vote on keeping only middle- class tax cuts. John Boehner, who will soon be the House speaker, called the vote “chicken crap.” The Democrats won the vote — with no barnyard references — but it makes no difference who won when the bill can’t get through the Senate.

Now the pressure is all on Obama. The tax cuts expire at the end of the year. If they expire, Republicans are confident they can successfully place the blame on Democrats. The funny thing is, Democrats basically agree. As Greg Sargent writes in The Washington Post, Democrats no longer believe they can win any long-term argument.

In this case, Republicans have one argument. They insist that without the top-earner tax cut, small businesses will be hurt and won’t hire. This argument might be more persuasive if, in fact, there had been any real job creation during the life of these tax cuts. Or as Warren Buffett, who opposes keeping tax breaks for people like him, said on CNN: “That has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on.”

It was Obama’s chance to help people catch on. He had the chance to make this a defining issue. He could have defined the issue as whether to approve a budget-busting tax cut for the rich. And yet, depending on which version you believe, Obama caved in either to Democrats who wanted to wait until after the midterms or to refusenik Republicans willing to hang together forever.

Spain came under repeated attack starting Thursday in what authorities called linked terrorist incidents, when a driver swerved a van into crowds in Barcelona’s historic Las Ramblas district, killing more than a dozen people and injuring scores of others. Early Friday, an attempted attack unfolded in a town down the coast

If there’s one superhero character whose rise might be most tied to the events of World War II, it is Captain America, who emerged from the minds of legends Joe Simon and Jack Kirby and sprung forth from an iconic 1941 debut cover on which Cap smacks Hitler right in the kisser.

A customer dining at Washington’s Oceanaire restaurant noticed an unusual line at the bottom of his receipt: “Due to the rising costs of doing business in this location, including costs associated with higher minimum wage rates, a 3% surcharge has been added to your total bill.”